Elbe Trackway

[Cotter]

Rockin - very simple. There are a lot of people that have picked up the balls you describe and ran with it. There are other, more dedicated people that are investigating that. I'll continue to read and ask questions regarding those persons' situations as needed.

What I don't see is folks trying to get to the bottom of this - can I ask why you don't care about THIS suspected hoaxer yet you feel very strong about the others you listed?

And I am not berating anyone. I am asking questions. Very simple questions.

 

[rockinkt]

Cotter - let's be serious for one moment here - OK?

The only reason that Noll et al even considered that the Elbe trackway was a hoax was that AFTER they decided it was legit and posted the pictures - knowledgeable people who actually gave a damn about whether something should be foisted on the general public as being fact when it was obvious fiction - commented on the problems with the tracks shown.

Doesn't it bother you in the least that knowledgeable people other than the supposed Bigfoot "Elite" made the call and only then was the trackway really investigated?

What does that say about the people who initially brought the Elbe Trackway to the public as a bonafide Bigfoot Trackway?

The way you are going on here it is obvious that you think only somebody in the Bigfoot "Elite" is qualified to call a hoax a hoax when the exact opposite has been proven once again!

 

[Jodie]

I thought we were talking about hoaxers here, so I asked if you knew of any instance where a hoaxer was approached by the lunatic fringe and what happened.

We're talking about the Elbe Trackway here. Allegedly a trackway made by someone that strapped some sort of prosthetic on their feet. I am trying to find out if the evidence pointing toward the person is accurate.

If I had proof Tontar was involved, I wouldn't be asking him to clear things up. But there is evidence that he is involved. Hence I'm asking.

It's a very simple question. One of thousands, if not millions that have been asked on this board. Why would there be ANY reason to not answer it? (That's rhetorical)

Jodie - do YOU feel that Tontar may have been involved?

I don't know any of the people involved so i'm not really that vested in the drama. I'm more interested in why you are over here throwing shade.

 

[Drewbot]

Cotter-
When you show us a REAL trackway, we will be interested. Trickery and Fakery is all I know about Bigfootry, it is the name of the game. When you can point to a trackway, and say "HERE IS A REAL BIGFOOT TRACK" that is when you will get some interest here. More fake trackways and who did it, is not important.

 

[rockinkt]

Rockin - very simple. There are a lot of people that have picked up the balls you describe and ran with it. There are other, more dedicated people that are investigating that. I'll continue to read and ask questions regarding those persons' situations as needed.

What I don't see is folks trying to get to the bottom of this - can I ask why you don't care about THIS suspected hoaxer yet you feel very strong about the others you listed?

And I am not berating anyone. I am asking questions. Very simple questions.

Why should anybody care who made the hoax once it is proven that it is a hoax? It is only the bleevers that feed off so-called Bigfoot evidence and if they have not seen the light by now - they never will.

What I care about is the fact that hoaxes are only acknowledged as hoaxes by people like you when the Bigfoot "Elite" make that call.

Your questions should be to them.

By the way - I seem to remember that you claim some sort of current or past LEO experience. If I'm right - you've got a lot to learn on how things are done by a real investigator. Your service and set-up is really, really bad.
If not - I apologize for confusing you with someone else.

 

[DozingConsciously]

You know, one easy way for the whole BF phenom to wane would be to STOP hoaxing, right? The 'community' would dwindle b/c there would be no evidence (since all evidence is hoaxed). BF would fade away, sightings would stop, etc.....a critical thinking victory, no?

Like many adherents, you make good logical points and then go all non-deterministic at the end to suit the conclusion you wish to draw.

Even if -- and I say if (because I genuinely have no knowledge of how the Elbe trackway came to be or the identit(y/ies) of the person(s) responsible for it) -- someone from a skeptical perspective made these specific tracks, it overlooks the fact that nearly all of the known hoaxed incidents came from non-skeptics (Wallace, Freeman, Noll, Patterson et al). Your idea that skeptics ceasing to hoax would reduce the field to zero is simply not co-terminous with reality.

The skeptical position isn't consistent with reducing the noise in order to see the signal. It's that there's no good reason to posit the existence of any signal at all.

 

[Cotter]

Cotter - let's be serious for one moment here - OK?

The only reason that Noll et al even considered that the Elbe trackway was a hoax was that AFTER they decided it was legit and posted the pictures - knowledgeable people who actually gave a damn about whether something should be foisted on the general public as being fact when it was obvious fiction - commented on the problems with the tracks shown.

Doesn't it bother you in the least that knowledgeable people other than the supposed Bigfoot "Elite" made the call and only then was the trackway really investigated?

What does that say about the people who initially brought the Elbe Trackway to the public as a bonafide Bigfoot Trackway?

The way you are going on here it is obvious that you think only somebody in the Bigfoot "Elite" is qualified to call a hoax a hoax when the exact opposite has been proven once again!

Rockin, good stuff above. I will comment. However, if you could take a minute or two to answer the questions I asked, I'd appreciate it.

I do acknowledge, and yes, agree that Mr. Noll posted the trackway as real. I don't know Mr. Noll, nor regard him as an 'elite' (though admit that some may in the BF world). I was suspicious of the tracks as well from the start as they looked an awful lot like some of the tracks others have argued are faked as well. I was VERY interested to see what they were seeing that I wasn't. Obvious fakes? I don't know about that. We don't have any 'real' ones to compare to, right?

Well, your second paragraph has some room for discussion as no matter what evidence is presented, there will be people claiming it fake. b/c bigfoot doesn't exist, right? So by claiming fake, there's a high probability you guessed right. Additionally, some of the 'knowledgable' people claiming fake were allegedly involved. Hence the question I've repeatedly asked of Tontar. But short answer - yes it does bother me that someone regarded highly in their field was so quick to claim real. There are others that are addressing that, and know what? Rick has been anwering the questions, not ignoring them. What does that say? I'm still looking for evidence that it was anything but over excitement of a find that didn't fail initial inspection. Do you have anything to suggest otherwise?

Your last paragraph is incorrect. I don't know how else to put it. I hope my post above has helped clear up your perception of what I do or do not think.

 

[Cotter]

Why should anybody care who made the hoax once it is proven that it is a hoax? It is only the bleevers that feed off so-called Bigfoot evidence and if they have not seen the light by now - they never will.

What I care about is the fact that hoaxes are only acknowledged as hoaxes by people like you when the Bigfoot "Elite" make that call.

Your questions should be to them.

By the way - I seem to remember that you claim some sort of current or past LEO experience. If I'm right - you've got a lot to learn on how things are done by a real investigator. Your service and set-up is really, really bad.
If not - I apologize for confusing you with someone else.

Hi Rockin - I wanted to respond to these as well.

Why should anybody care? Because it will help prevent people from being hoaxed by the hoaxer in the future. Simple as that.

See my previous post about the bigfoot elite. I don't proclaim ANYTHING as real or fake. I haven't seen proof offered on either side.

LEO Experience? I'm not sure what that is (Law Enforcement?)

Definitely not me if that's the case.

 

[Drewbot]

The way to prevent being hoaxed, is to provide evidence that Bigfoot exists. Once Bigfoot exists, you can then claim that not every trackway is hoaxed, as of right now, EVERY TRACKWAY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED A HOAX. There simply is no Giant Hairy Beast of Unclassified Status, that is capable of making such prints in North America.

 

[Tontar]

Couple quick comments.
Care to clear the air at all and to acknowledge or deny your inolvement?

No I don't.

 

[Cotter]

Like many adherents, you make good logical points and then go all non-deterministic at the end to suit the conclusion you wish to draw.

Even if -- and I say if (because I genuinely have no knowledge of how the Elbe trackway came to be or the identit(y/ies) of the person(s) responsible for it) -- someone from a skeptical perspective made these specific tracks, it overlooks the fact that nearly all of the known hoaxed incidents came from non-skeptics (Wallace, Freeman, Noll, Patterson et al). Your idea that skeptics ceasing to hoax would reduce the field to zero is simply not co-terminous with reality.

The skeptical position isn't consistent with reducing the noise in order to see the signal. It's that there's no good reason to posit the existence of any signal at all.

First, I am against hoaxing from both sides, my argument is not directed solely at the skeptical side. It is not my opinion or idea that skeptics ceasing to hoax will reduce the field to zero.

My question to all (you included) is why if you are so adament on showing that Noll, Patterson, et al are hoaxer (which I don't think has been shown to be fact just yet has it? - I would be interested in reading about that), why are you choosing to ignore this instance?

Additionally then, by your logic. If there is no signal, then it is OK to fake a signal? Perpetuating YOUR position that there is no signal to begin with?

Can you explain that please?

 

[Cotter]

Thanks for your reply Tontar.

 

[Cotter]

The way to prevent being hoaxed, is to provide evidence that Bigfoot exists. Once Bigfoot exists, you can then claim that not every trackway is hoaxed, as of right now, EVERY TRACKWAY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED A HOAX. There simply is no Giant Hairy Beast of Unclassified Status, that is capable of making such prints in North America.

And in your opinion. It is OK to hinder such evidence gathering (that you requested) by hoaxing b/c you believe the creature doesn't exist?

Can you please explain that?

If it was as simple as you suggest. Would we be here discussing this? Or is it not really that simple?

 

[Drewbot]

How does it hinder Bigfooters from not collecting evidence? They seem to be able to NOT COLLECT real evidence whether they are being hoaxed or whether they are being hoaxed. They CERTAINLY aren't collecting real evidence, and you can't blame that lack of evidence on a few hoaxers. What you can blame it on is No Bigfoots.

 

[RedRatSnake]

It moved well beyond trying to prove it exists long ago. It is now just a business for those who pretend to look for it.

 

[DozingConsciously]

My question to all (you included) is why if you are so adament on showing that Noll, Patterson, et al are hoaxer (which I don't think has been shown to be fact just yet has it? - I would be interested in reading about that), why are you choosing to ignore this instance?

Noll and Patterson (and Freeman) are interesting purely because they were taken seriously, put themselves forward, and because of the fact they were given a pass solely because they were perceived to be believer-friendly.

None of that applies here: The hoaxer has not been taken seriously (or is claimed not to have been taken seriously); has not shown a desire to place themselves front and centre, and has not been given a pass (if only because someone believes they found a connection to a known-skeptic).

Nobody knew of Wallace or Dickens for years (until they chose to show their hands). And nobody cared. They were doing their own thing in private for their own amusement, partly assuming that nobody else really took their stuff seriously, either -- or at least shouldn't. That seems the much more pertinent analogy for this instance, no?

Additionally then, by your logic. If there is no signal, then it is OK to fake a signal? Perpetuating YOUR position that there is no signal to begin with?
Can you explain that please?

You can't fake signal. In the context of this torturous analogy, by definition, fakes are noise. The existence of noise has no bearing on the existence of a discernible signal; it is orthogonal to and independent of it. As such your implication is both misplaced and the result of misunderstanding.

 

[xtifr]

Why should anybody care? Because it will help prevent people from being hoaxed by the hoaxer in the future. Simple as that.

In my opinion, that would be a bad thing. If the hoaxer is trying to out the fraud and wishful thinking that is rife in the BF community, revealing his identity would be counterproductive, as the bleevers could simply say, "so-and-so was in the neighborhood", rather than examining the evidence with their obviously flawed methodology. Thus, they could continue to hide the flaws in their methodology. (The most obvious flaw being the fact that BF does not exist, so identifying a hoax is as simple as saying, "these appear to be BF tracks"--but that's a separate matter.)

If a magician is trying to demonstrate hot-reading, to show how psychic frauds operate, it would be completely counterproductive for him to reveal the identities of his associates who gather data. Likewise, if the JREF is trying to expose the gullibility and lack of skill of the so-called "experts" in the BF community (who, in my opinion, are every bit as much frauds as psychics, even if they're sincere in their ridiculous beliefs), it would be counterproductive to reveal the identity of the hoaxers.

The important question is not "whodunnit?" The important question is "is this a hoax, and were the self-proclaimed experts able to identify it as such?"

 

[Drewbot]

I think you are all missing the point. Couldn't anyone picture those guys out on that beach with $$ for eyes? They are mad that THEY DIDN'T GET FOOLED, not that they got fooled.

if they were "Actually Fooled", the BFRO would have page dedicated to the legitimacy of the footprints, and there would be a whole subsection of threads about it at BFF, there would be conferences with the investigators, selling casts of the footprints. "Almost Fooled" is bad for business.

 

[xtifr]

And in your opinion. It is OK to hinder such evidence gathering (that you requested) by hoaxing b/c you believe the creature doesn't exist?

I think it's ok to hoax in order to expose the fact that the self-proclaimed "experts" aren't. I don't think it's ok to hoax in order to defraud the gullible out of their hard-earned dollars. I favor public exposure in the latter case, but not the former. BF's lack of existence is irrelevant.

Hoaxing to rip people off=bad. Hoaxing to expose fraud=good. And the fraud that's been exposed here is the supposed expertise of certain well-respected members of the BF community who should not be respected.

Of course, the fact that BF doesn't exist means that no sensible person should respect anyone in the BF community (and, indeed, few do--even those who are on the fence tend to think that BF hunters are fruitcakes). But that's a side issue, and irrelevant to the question of good hoaxing vs. bad.

 

[DozingConsciously]

I think you are all missing the point. Couldn't anyone picture those guys out on that beach with $$ for eyes? They are mad that THEY DIDN'T GET FOOLED, not that they got fooled.

I think we all get that, Drew. It's more that that's their bag. We're just trying to get them to see why that very difference is the reason it isn't ours.

It's long been observed that believers need their long, dark, doubting nights of the soul to consolidate their faith. In some masochistic way, the non-profiteers are enjoying this.